Public opinion on energy issues is shifting due to the rising cost of fuel. Even in California, according to a recent SurveyUSA poll, 47 percent of the public supports the construction of modern nuclear powers plant while only 35 percent oppose. Further, 59 percent of Californians want to drill for the vast amounts of oil off our coast while only 33 percent want to keep those resources off limits.
With this change in public opinion in mind, I wonder two things: when will California’s leaders, such as Gov. Schwarzenegger and Democrat legislators, publicly change their minds; and, what impact might this significant shift in public opinion have on the Presidential race.
Lastly, regarding offshore oil, might public opinion be further swayed when the people discover that slant drilling technology has advanced to the point that offshore rigs aren’t really needed to access California’s offshore oil deposits. Slant drilling from near the shore can reach oil fields miles off the coast - all without an offshore rig. Further, the safety record of offshore rigs is actually better than that of oil tankers, which are statistically far more prone to accidents.
Tags: energy, Nuclear Power, oil drilling
This entry was posted
on Wednesday, June 25th, 2008 at 3:08 pm and is filed under Nuclear Power, energy.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
June 25th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
We need nuclear power in the State of California. We do need to drill for oil in this time of need. I hear the argument that it takes 5 years to design, approve and build a nuclear power station. It needs to start now. The cop out attitude of it will ddisrupt nature. Are you kidding me? it is absurd. By the way what is more important your life or the life of some little fish? Democrats, most of your voters are people whose careers depends on the price of cheap oil.
June 25th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
You’re absolutely correct. Sadly, however, both of California’s US Senators are adamantly opposed to any drilling or oil exploration. Like many liberals, they feel alternative energy (other than, of course, nuclear power) is the wave of the future. Problem is, that future is years away. Ours is a society based on hydrocarbon fuels–that’s not going to change anytime soon. Their irrational and unrealistic attitude leaves us hostage to foreign oil (produced mainly by countries that hate us) and higher prices. Oh wait, Feinstein, Boxer, and Gore can afford to buy “carbon offsets” to salve their conscience, while we “little people” don’t have that luxury. The hypocrisy of it all…
June 25th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
In the next 25 years world demand for oil will jump 50%. Without nuclear and additional drilling we will be not only filling the treasuries of nations that countenance Islamic terror but the civilized world will be held hostage.
Sadly the Democrats well thought out energy policy fits on a bumper sticker and it feeds directly into our enemies hands.
Wind, solar, wave generation etc cannot replace oil and is only an adjunct.
Must we wait until gas is $10/gallon and our enemies are dictating policy to us?
June 25th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Dan W - You forgot two major energy sources that the democrats are presumably counting on: Pixie dust and moonbeams.
That can be the only conceivable answer, because simple 4th grade, back-o-the-napkin arithmetic will show we can’t get from here to there on renewables, even using the most optimistic projections for wind, solar, et. al.
And I love the standard lib response contra drilling in ANWR or offshore: “But it won’t help NOW…..We won’t get a drop for 5 years…..etc.” Using that line of thinking it is also then silly for a farmer to plant crops, because he can’t eat or sell them “now”…..he must wait for harvest time. Idiots.
June 25th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
I spoke about the need for drilling in Alaska and the need for off-shore drilling as well as nuclear at last night’s council meeting during council comments. I mentioned that at $3.50/gallon for gas everyone seemed O.K. But when it got to over $4.00/gallon people started to change habits. This is adding to a downturn in our economy. When they say it will take 5-10 years to reap the benefits, we will in worse shape if we wait. How many more jobs need to be lost before we have a real and practical energy program?
June 25th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
Thank you Chuck for continuing to take the point in promoting the expansion of nuclear energy in our state. The shortage of energy impacts all of us regardless of party affiliation. Let’s pray that your colleagues in Sacramento can set aside partisan opposition and work together with the people’s interest before their own. Thank you!
June 25th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
Chuck Devore tells it like it is, and has been doing it since he got elected. We need a variety of alternative fuel technologies to maintain our standard of living and give our children the gifts of opportunity and security that ‘The Greatest Generation’ gave us. The problem is it will take time to transition to new technologies and build nuclear plants under even the best of circumstances. We need to tap into our VAST reservoir of oil and coal resources immediately to bridge the transition, including the oil in ANWR reserves and offshore oil.
June 25th, 2008 at 8:09 pm
Chuck Devore is a straight talker that tells it like it is. He can cut through the nonsense and specious arguments like few others, and draw intelligent and reasonable conclusions that we can build on. We need a variety of alternative fuel technologies to maintain our standard of living and give our children the gifts of opportunity and security that ‘The Greatest Generation’ gave us. The problem is it will take time to transition to new technologies and build nuclear plants under even the best of circumstances. We need to tap into our VAST reservoir of oil and coal resources immediately to bridge the transition, including the oil in ANWR reserves and offshore oil.
June 26th, 2008 at 4:42 am
Hey, I’m a Democrat and I fully support the expansion of nuclear power. The waste and safety issues are over blown and nothing compared with the impact of fossil fuel burning. Coal sits in the ground for eons and adsorbs tons of heavy metals which are released into the atmosphere and returned to you in tuna fish cans. If nuclear waste is seen as a stumbling block I suggest one checks out Thorium as an alternative feed stock, the most advanced company in this space is Thorium Power Ltd. This is a little ways off, but the company has run a 1/3 scale test for five years now and it appears to work. Westinghouse also says it is viable but needs a full scale test, which is the only thing left to be done on it. As far as drilling goes, I fully support it in the future. Oil is still too cheap. When it hit $200 a barrel and the other guys are beginning to tap out then the tables will turn. The most exciting alternative technology in the mean time is the one developed by Coskata. Check this out. You could fire the gasifier’s plasma guns with excess capacity from the State’s four new AP1000s to produce Syngas, the production of which can also dispose of agricultural, medical and municipal waste, old tires and plastic grocery bags. Out the other side you can get ethanol to fuel E85 hybrid vehicles. Nuclear powered cars. GM just dumped undisclosed millions into this company after a tech review. In addition, all the high speed rail connections between cities the Governor wants built can be run on nuclear generated electricity.
June 26th, 2008 at 7:29 am
“Common Sense!” cries Thomas Paine from across the centuries.
Solar energy would burn holes in peoples’ pockets. Oil is too slippery to keep as our major source. Wind is a lot of hot air. And as precious as animals and plants are, they can share a bit more of the territory with us.
Common sense is thankfully leading more citizens to see the practicality and logic of another source of naturally occurring energy. Keep it up, Chuck. We can’t remain in a tenuous-at-best position as dependents upon less-than-dependable countries for our energy.
June 26th, 2008 at 10:38 am
Drilling for oil is one thing, but we’re at near output capacity in our current refinery system…..how about building more refineries in CA? Having more crude available is great, but if you don’t have the capacity to refine it, what’s the point?